October 20, 2009

[A] gay man with an unabashed affection for eyeliner and nail polish has emerged... as a new American sex symbol. "I think it's beautiful," Lambert says. "That's the way it should be. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexual preference is — it doesn't change their appeal."...

"There was one woman in Jersey who was actually gorgeous," says Lambert. "She had obviously had a couple of cocktails, and during an after–show meet–and–greet, she just slithered up next to me and started kissing my neck. I was cool with it. But then it started to get a little weird because she was, like, moaning. She gave me a note that said, 'I want to make out with you, here's my number,' and I was like, wow, this is crazy. But again, it's cool. Because yeah, I am gay, but I like kissing women sometimes. Women are pretty. It doesn't mean I'm necessarily sleeping with them...."

"I don't see how all this is any different than—let's take a modern sex symbol like Brad Pitt. How many of these women who fantasize about him actually get to sleep with him?... It's all fantasy—that's what entertainment is."

It was confirmed for me at the last Idol Tour concert. It was like night and day when these women perked up and then just shut-down after his second- or third-place spot on the concert play list. We're not even talking cougars here, but grandma types. I just couldn't understand the excitement these women felt for this not especially talented young gay man. No precedent that I can recall. Liberace? But there it was.

A guy I know who was on the original Idol Tour said the gay semi-finalists on the tour were all constantly hitting on him on the bus and elsewhere.

Shouting Thomas - I'm gay, but I didn't pass through a gaydom that was any more boring, childish and empty than it is in straightdom. We're all in this boring, childish and empty _____dom together, man.

Not if you're one of those "conservatives" who believes that doing something about this would constitute a despotic impediment to the FREE!TM Market:

"Feminisation of the males of numerous vertebrate species is now a widespread occurrence. All vertebrates have similar sex hormone receptors, which have been conserved in evolution. Therefore, observations in one species may serve to highlight pollution issues of concern for other vertebrates, including humans."

Fish, it says, are particularly affected by pollutants as they are immersed in them when they swim in contaminated water, taking them in not just in their food but through their gills and skin. They were among the first to show widespread gender-bending effects.

Half the male fish in British lowland rivers have been found to be developing eggs in their testes; in some stretches all male roaches have been found to be changing sex in this way. Female hormones – largely from the contraceptive pills which pass unaltered through sewage treatment – are partly responsible, while more than three-quarters of sewage works have been found also to be discharging demasculinising man-made chemicals. Feminising effects have now been discovered in a host of freshwater fish species as far away as Japan and Benin, in Africa, and in sea fish in the North Sea, the Mediterranean, Osaka Bay in Japan and Puget Sound on the US west coast.

Research at the University of Florida earlier this year found that 40 per cent of the male cane toads – a species so indestructible that it has become a plague in Australia – had become hermaphrodites in a heavily farmed part of the state, with another 20 per cent undergoing lesser feminisation. A similar link between farming and sex changes in northern leopard frogs has been revealed by Canadian research, adding to suspicions that pesticides may be to blame.

Male alligators exposed to pesticides in Florida have suffered from lower testosterone and higher oestrogen levels, abnormal testes, smaller penises and reproductive failures. Male snapping turtles have been found with female characteristics in the same state and around the Great Lakes, where wildlife has been found to be contaminated with more than 400 different chemicals. Male herring gulls and peregrine falcons have produced the female protein used to make egg yolks, while bald eagles have had difficulty reproducing in areas highly contaminated with chemicals.

whats gay about eyeliner and nail polish? i know plenty of gay men and none of them wear eyeliner or nail polish. it seems that lambert is the way he is not because hes a gay guy but because hes a pretentious sissy. theres a difference.

Not as hilarious and ironic as your inability to even continue to read through the rest of the excerpt where it mentions "pesticides" or the "400" other chemicals (of which they can't all be birth control), let alone the whole article.

Start by looking into phthalates, dumbass. Plasticizers are pretty ubiquitously used regardless of political ideology. But conservatives are probably more likely to treat their gay kids like shit, so the joke's on you.

Not as hilarious and ironic as your inability to even continue to read through the rest of the excerpt where it mentions "pesticides" or the "400" other chemicals (of which they can't all be birth control)

I read the rest of your post. But alas, it was neither hilarious nor ironic, so I didn't bother commenting.

I read the rest of your post. But alas, it was neither hilarious nor ironic, so I didn't bother commenting.

Right. Instead, it was sobering, well-reasoned and made the right look even worse than the left (seeing as how they object to sufficiently regulating the majority of those chemicals and are more likely to be hostile to gays).

The lead in to your comment had some spittle-flecked vituperation about conservatives. This is what makes the contraceptives point ironic, and also what makes it amusing. If you had started with spittle-flecked vituperation about liberals, different parts of your comment would have been hilarious and ironic.

I shouldn't have to explain this to you -- you do speak English, right?

What does some "lead-in" have to do with anything? What am I? A performance artist? I'm not doing this primarily for attention or entertainment, unlike some, I suppose.

If conservatives are uncomfortable with regulating what chemicals are unleashed into our environment, then how does the existence of oral contraception validate their position? When oral contraception surely can't count for anything other than a slim minority of "400" chemicals found? The majority of those would be consumer or industrial products entirely unrelated to oral contraception. But I guess the way you put it conservatives must only be capable of understanding the idea of counting and arithmetic when you apply those things to the size of their tax cut and nothing else - including their probable (and large, and unwitting - hence ironic) contribution to the "feminization" of the human race.

My personal "inability to even continue to read through the rest of the excerpt" presented is directly related to MUL's apparent inability to present an argument or make a comment without resorting to name-calling.

How many times has calling someone a "dumbass" worked to convince them to consider what you have to say worth reading or listening to???

Oh! So name calling is babble, but ridiculing someone when you've demonstrated an inability to read what they've quoted is not? What is it then?

I mean, as long as you're going to come out and play lunch lady, enforcing rules of etiquette and politeness, MamaM? Or are you just promoting partisanship? Etiquette as an excuse for fairly thinking through a point lest people have a problem with the conclusion?

Just because I want to make you feel the respect you believe you and everyone else who disagrees with me deserves, let me just convey to you my excitement and anticipation at your answer! I'm sure it will be VERY INTELLIGENT AND THOUGHTFUL!!!

But I think if you haven't got the summary via the call-and-response that Balfegor put me through, then I'm not sure they make a Cliff's Notes for that short an attention span!

The point is that unregulated chemicals are feminizing male vertebrates. Recent studies show that this is happening in human males as well (not from the article I quoted but another). If your attention span is strong enough to get through that AND you still don't think what I say is part of a partisan conspiracy, then let me know, and we can discuss it further. Or I'll just take no response as the beginning of a long road on the way to enlightened agreement.

Sorry I neglected to make you feel like you were a sufficiently important part of that discussion.

What is up with conservatives who clearly don't understand something feeling this overwhelming need to make sure that any comment toward them demonstrates a sufficient level of respect for their intelligence before they will consider its merits?

It sounds like a way of advocating the confusion of facts with feelings.

Sorry, Montana. You were getting pretty emotional there, so I pulled your braids for laughs. Now you're even more emotional. I feel really terrible about that.

I understand what you're saying about science: You think you're a scientist because all lefties get to pretend they're all scientific and stuff. Nope. Throwing tantrums on the internet isn't science, Montana. Sorry.

Anyhow, conservatives understand very well what negative externalities are, far better than you. What you can't grasp at all, because you're too emotional, is that everything is a tradeoff. The way you operate is that you fly into a blind hysterical panic over the first thing that scares you, and you run around screaming that it's the only thing in the world that matters — until you bump into another wall, forget that one, and switch over to panicking about something else.

That's the way adolescents operate. It's deeply stupid and irresponsible. There are lots of things in this world to worry about. Your chemicals are not number one on most people's list, and fixing them may cost more than it's worth. I can pretty much guarantee that your proposed fix will be prohibitively expensive, do a lot of unrelated damage, and in the end fail to address the problem you're upset about.

By the way, Balfegor went way over your head. You're a humorless little drone, aren't you?

"That's the way it should be. It shouldn't matter what a person's sexual preference is—it doesn't change their appeal."

Exactly! Which is precisely why we have 'good' friends.

Unfortunately for most of us, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie fantasies aside, problems can crop up when someone fantasizes about HAVING sex with someone who does not share the same fantasy.

This is common rocky ground for heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. Right? If you agree, then perhaps we can agree that this "problem" is simply part of our human existence, and we figure it out, one fantasy at a time, and move on.

Some move on to the next fantasy, some to a new friend, and some to the love of their life.

Hey man, if fixing the problem with men's anuses developing closer to their scrotums (a clear sign of feminization) is a problem for conservatives, I guess they should become less emotional about their gay sons requesting their rights and being treated with dignity, like adults. Right?

But I guess that would be too big a trade-off.

Balfegor didn't go over my head. I called out his bullshit on the first go-around. He thought he was pointing out irony, and I pointed out the bigger piece of irony that he missed.

And you, my friend, happened to miss that, as well.

I certainly don't need your approval of my credentials in science, or your idiotic assertion that any esteem in which I hold the institution or my ability or accomplishments in it is both false and somehow premised on my politics. You have no idea who I am. But that is the dumbest characterization I've ever heard. A neanderthal could come up with a better conclusion, frankly.

I can see that you think it's a lost cause to keep estrogens out of the water supply. What I can't understand is why someone who thinks that believes that we should seal off our emotions and pretend they don't exist.

The other thought is that emotions are connected to intelligence. Someone who denies them might really be as devoid of emotion as they are of related processes, more traditionally characterized as "cognitive".

I hear you earnestly claiming a desire to communicate, while repeatedly using words that demean, dismiss and antagonize.

And yet, you never call out others for doing that. Is that because you find them insincere in their purported desire to communicate?

I question sincerity and intent when I encounter that kind of incongruity.

I guess it does, then. Well, okay then.

If you really want to make a difference and encourage people to consider your point of view, try ditching the name calling. Otherwise, drop the pretense.

I'm just trying to go by the rules that seem to apply here. I honestly don't think many people here aren't so entrenched in their views that they would bother considering views that challenge them. If I got a different impression, I'd more quickly try a different approach - assuming that I'm here to satisfy a political impulse, which I'm not. I'm just someone who sees that ridicule is the way that comaraderie and uniformity (which I have more of a problem with) are enforced, and don't find attempts at humor (or even ridicule, to a degree) inherently offensive. I'm just trying to speak the same social language that I observe here.

I guess the rule is that if a conservative says something that doesn't make sense, you have to point it out gently, without the humor that he uses to reinforce his own point of view.

Instead of trying to be fair and applying those same rules, I will accept the hypocrisy that accompanies a conservative's inability to change his mind in the same way that he attempts to change the minds of non-conservatives.

Bearable? I dunno. I mean, I don't find vociferous argumentation, even if it crosses a line into ridicule or personal comments that unbearable. And yet, it's not like I live for it either. I can go either way. If something's meant in humor and good fun, and that's the spirit of a good, even entertaining fight, I'm game. If it becomes tedious, mean or detracts from the kind of conversation people would like to have, however, that's fine by me too. I can go the other way.

Like I said to Mama.... I'm just trying to figure out the ground rules.

I think Althouse is impelled in large degree by a desire to merge some potentially interesting arguments here and there with entertainment. I can see the point, and how it contributes to the appeal of the blog. I just wish it were clearer when humor and good (hopefully) clean fun is more the point than a good argument.

Like I said, I can get a kick out of either. Just gimme some guidance and whatnot every now and then if there's a certain (intended) tack that's not obvious.

ugh i just clicked on the "lambert grapples with naked lady" link. the naked lady would be fine to look at except she has this nasty doughy carbuncle attached to her in all the pictures...

is this a typical celebrity type photo shoot these days, to have semi clothed, pg13 rated pastiches of porno pictures in mainstream magazines? why don't they just show harshly lit color photos of celebrities fucking and be done with it. but if theyre gonna do that then they need to find better looking celebrities than this lambert toad. blech.

there was an ad at the side of the website:

"Enter for a chance to become a superstar for a day—Details and Adam Lambert will give you the rocker's signature look in a one-on-one photo shoot with the American Idol. "

the rockers signature look? drugstore eyeliner, pommade, a bad complexion and an extra 30 pounds?? thats what the winner gets??

hell id do that if i got to roll around with that woman but i suspect that ill have to roll around with a naked lambert. ick. no thanks, i dont want to have to scrub sebum, cheap eyeliner and pommade stains out of my clothes, let alone contend with the strained back from having that lardass on top of me.

Isn't it grand to be a homosexual? Living your life in a state of utter vapidity one fag hag at a time. Touching something you can never become and all the while living in sheer tortuous guilt that who you are is up for judgment every Planck second of the day. Yup, being gay sure is fun.

from what ive seen of my gay friends being gay seems a lot more fun than it seems to be you. you sound miserable! lambert is just one gay guy. dont extrapolate anything from that. the media wants you to think of lambert gays because they sell more magazines and tv shows than non-pretentious sissy gays.

Adam Lambert looks like he's positioning himself to become the next gay Elvis. His star is already burned out and no one cares. At least Elvis is idolized for having done something in his life, what is Lamberts claim to fame going to be? Oh yes, he's different and wears eye makeup. How quaint. Someone needs to tell KISS there is new hombre in town.

from what ive seen of my gay friends being gay seems a lot more fun than it seems to be you. you sound miserable! lambert is just one gay guy. dont extrapolate anything from that. the media wants you to think of lambert gays because they sell more magazines and tv shows than non-pretentious sissy gays.

Nice segregation there with the gay friends thing. I just have friends and I really don't care their sexual proclivities and oddly enough they don't either. Nice extrapolation on my alleged misery. I'm having a grand old time. What I extrapolate is that he is nothing more than a piece of human fodder that is using the perception of alternative sexuality as a means use whatever he is promoting. Whether that is himself or something else. The problem is, is that now that homosexuals have had the privilege of getting to use mass media as the front stage (for nearly free, I might add) to promote themselves, nearly slavishly for some higher cause of acceptance, what they've really done is the opposite. Which is created a quiet antipathy and animosity towards that which they sought to normalize.

A 2% - 4% American minority solely based on their self-inflicted identity issues has gotten to use a bully pulpit to make sure we mouth-breathing breeders notice them and who they are. They've basically devolved their whole cultural identity (if you want to call it that) to that of attention whore. I hope it was all worth it.

And do the rest of you guys see what Methadras just did? I know Detroit's a (excuse his language) "shit hole". Why do I need him to point that out and attach some ridiculous partisan stuff to it?

Michigan had Republican governors for years, through the sixties and into the nineties. And big cities almost always have Democrat mayors. What is the point he is trying to make? With nothing more thoughtful than an epithet and a political snipe?

Detroit came into prominence because Henry Ford started the consolidation of a national industry based on promises to workers that ended up being a Taylorist ploy.

The industry went into decline because the pencil-pushing business types came onto the scene forty years ago - pushing efficiency of manufacturing at the expense of quality. True story. How many times can you re-use this metal stamp? 1000? Ok, go for 2000.

They started making junk way before foreign manufacturers poised any significant competition.

By the eighties, the political narrative was about economic nationalism. "Buy American!". What a stupid approach. I saw the stupidity of it even then. But hey - that's the way we dealt with things as a country.

You want to blame it on unions at that point? That's not what conservatives were saying.

And how does this address the fact that the downfall of the industry started with conservative(?) pencil pushers, business types, advocating the manufacture of what was clearly JUNK? Just so's they could save a dime? Foreign manufacturers weren't a problem then. What was their excuse? Because that clearly set into motion the decline of the industry by the time it was.

Do you see why guys like Methadras throw the game off?

Should I not equate his ignorance and lack of any use for fact and an understanding of history in slamming Detroit with his hatred of the left? I mean, he equated the two. Not me.

Urban's input was interesting,nothing more; what's so wrong with that? His later stridency was off-putting. That opened the gate to others ganging up and playing a cool game of cat & mouse with him. Of course,he just dug himself deeper in the hole. He doesn't know the game very well.

In the meantime, Adam Lambert's still hot as hell for a lot of us. Complexions/weight have nothing to do with sex appeal, which differs from person to person. I believe the various pronouncements, all absolutes, about Adam were the silliest remarks made. Adam, for me,= Yummy. I agree lots rests on his upcoming album. In the meantime, Adam . . . . yummy.

Urban . . . I said your remarks were interesting -- geez! I was one of your defenders (were there any others?) To that other guy, Daubier, bitter guy -- it was to him I said I wasn't into Adam because of sex I expected to get. How silly. I would not waste a fantasy on that. I just LOVE the guy, that's all. I do want to admit I could not follow all that was said in this discourse; it hit some deep waters I could only wade in. But I gained from it. I think. I just wanted to point out that even an amateur intellectual/poster could see the gaming -- and frankly it about ruined the dialog.

I could be wrong but I think Daubier's not a guy. And gaming is a concern. Not because I want to "game" anything; I want to be honest. And if I can only get an important point across to certain others by making a "game" out of it, I'd rather not feel impelled to make the point.

Maybe that makes me a poor sport. I just think that if an honest concern can only be understood by making a game out of it, then reaching an understanding ceases becoming the point.

In that case don't ever try setting them up on a date with someone, it could be awkward!

And not only that, but does that really jibe with your experience as a guy? Do you really not know which of your friends are straight - and as a straight guy, most of your friends will probably be straight? Whereas if you're friends with anyone who's gay you likely knew that to begin with?

I mean, most of the guys you're friends with, is their sexual orientation really shrouded in mystery? I really don't know of any guy who would relate to Meth's take on this.

Yes, but on the other hand you say rude things and then claim you "need to be honest".

What do you mean, "on the other hand"? I am honest about both things. When you say "on the other hand" people might get the impression that you are drawing a contrast. I try to be honest about my own shortcomings as well as those of others. What the hell's wrong with that? Why should such consistency be seen as something other than a sign of integrity?

What are we to make of you?

Dude, make whatever you want. Or better yet, give me the opportunity to explain what I mean on something that you don't understand? You don't "make" me, others don't "make" anything "of" me. I just am me. I didn't realize that there was a club with requirements for acceptance or something for me being me and just commenting. If you don't understand your own basis for making judgments, though, what am I to make of that? What am I to make of your own inability to define me - despite an apparent need(?) to do so?

Clearly the bad far outways the good.

Clearly all I did on this thread was (for the most part) comment on the feminization of men as a result of the unwillingness to regulate the chemicals that do so. I did so initially as a point of contrast from the "liberals have feminized society" meme that dominates in conservative circles. No factual dissent was noted, but ideological dissent was. So what? So there you have it.

Clearly I should feel lucky for not needing to break something so detailed down into categories as simplistic as "good" and "bad", though. Should I not?

And do the rest of you guys see what Methadras just did? I know Detroit's a (excuse his language) "shit hole". Why do I need him to point that out and attach some ridiculous partisan stuff to it?

Oh yes, see what I did right there? I pointed out a fact about a city that I actually used to live in? You ever live there? If not, unkindly shut the fuck up? If you've ever seen what your poisonous ilk did to Detroit you wouldn't be flapping your gap by becoming The John Madden of Althouse. Detroit used to be a great city. A great city. Leftism has left it a rotten husk. You don't like that truth and I can understand that, but you aren't entitled to wash away facts about a city that has been decimated by the policies that your ideology has brought to bear.

I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but maybe you could just say what you are trying to say.

I snipped the rest because this is really the meat of what I'm trying to get across.

The friends that I have who just happen to be homosexual males may disagree with you. If you've seen the utter dysfunction they've had to endure because of who they are and how they choose to live doesn't make me envy them at all. I love them because they are my dear friends, but I loathe their way of life. It's filled with hurt and grief and almost all of it is needlessly manufactured. I listen to them when they need to vent because that's what I do as a friend, but it frankly from my side of the fence being a homosexual isn't a picnic. Sure, they deal with it, but the price they pay isn't worth the effort. Considering their lowered life spans, their much higher propensities for illicit drug use, their much higher levels of promiscuity, their rampant numbers of STD's, and the levels of depression they endure isn't something to cherish or behold as a solid way of life. It's their life, I let them live it, but they piss me off when I see them go down destructive roads because the lifestyle is geared towards that.

I don't live in the minority homosexual world, I live in the vast majority heterosexual world. However, that being said, I see no value in that minority world. There was a time when homosexuals in this society were indistinguishable from heterosexuals. Oh, they had their secret handshakes and whatnot, but they always kept it to themselves and people for the most part paid no heed. Now that it's flaunted, the unintended consequences are rearing their ugly heads and I don't like what I see at all and it's a shame because as people I love them dearly. Humorous and articulate, well read, and intelligent, indistinguishable from everyone else until that other worlds siren call is heard and it all goes away until the next time.

You don't like what I have to say and frankly I could care less, but I won't hide my disdain for a manufactured cultural lifestyle that has zero regard for the human capital it uses up to keep itself going. I spit on it.

Methadras is terrified. The only one who's tortured, and the only one who's guilty, is him. A classic closet case.

Here we go. Hook, line, and sinker. Little man, again I ask you, what are you afraid of? Tell me what I'm terrified of? You? What guilt do I bear, what guilt do I hide and why do you constantly fall on your rote retorts of closet homosexuality against people who don't think very highly of you. I certainly don't and yet you consistently throw out that little practiced canard as if it actually has meaning. You're a stale, tired, little wisp who throws meaningless epithets at that which you have no defense against. You're a malignant little narcissist who finds boogey men waiting to accost his precious little gay sensibilities because of the drama of it all. Woe is you.

If you all haven't learned that from his consistently insane gay bashing here, this is just another example.

Is the violin you play as small as the brain that tries to play it? You're a dope who derives dopey conclusions from a dopey understanding of what is said. Your practices little quips are just the defensive lashing out of a small little personality with a small understanding of the larger world he lives in. Go back to your little gay enclave and surround yourself with your other like minded bigoted dopes who will nod their heads at all of your little utterings as if they actually meant something. Dope.

I lived in Detroit and I had something more insightful to say regarding what brought about its decline than MEPHISTOPHELES did, so HE CAN "unkindly shut the fuck up."

But that's what his "poisonous ilk" do, I suppose. Just keep their mouths going without anything to say other than "leftism," "leftism," "leftism". Blah blah blah. It's like he's a broken record. Or has Tourette Syndrome.

Bad quality brought about the decline of the American auto industry. These were "executive" decisions. Had nothing to do with "leftism". But Mephistopheles can think that if it makes his tortured little brain feel better. Just shut the fuck up if you don't have anything more intelligent to say and keep your anxiety attacks to yourself, ok?

wv: pesters. Which is what patients who've escaped from the psychiatric ward like Mephistopheles do to me.

And I think it was channel 62. See? I even remember that. But I hear Mephistopheles on the "leftism". Must be his primitive education that prevents him from grasping the definition of the word "fact".

Wail on, Meph. Wail on. Sooner or later some kind shrink will hear your cries of anguish and have them appropriately treated. We'd hate to let you continue thinking that the big left-wing conspiracy is responsible for your internal pain and suffering. Medication will help and it will take away the hallucinations and voices you hear, too!

Jason, your a good guy, but that was just an ignorant thing to say. No it isn't. Life isn't hard on everyone. Sometimes there are things in life you can't control that can make your life a little more difficult, however, within the context of what I've/we've been talking about, a lot of that 'life is hard' portion is self-induced or self-inflicted.

I lived in Detroit and I had something more insightful to say regarding what brought about its decline than MEPHISTOPHELES did, so HE CAN "unkindly shut the fuck up."

Oh yes, here's a pat on the head and a cookie because you thought you could adorn us with your little quippy factoids about Detroits automobile origin of decline while utterly neglecting the fact that for 60 years of liberalism/leftism in that city has led to it's basic collapse. It's self evident in the total degradation of that once great city.

And I think it was channel 62. See? I even remember that. But I hear Mephistopheles on the "leftism". Must be his primitive education that prevents him from grasping the definition of the word "fact".

Wail on, Meph. Wail on. Sooner or later some kind shrink will hear your cries of anguish and have them appropriately treated. We'd hate to let you continue thinking that the big left-wing conspiracy is responsible for your internal pain and suffering. Medication will help and it will take away the hallucinations and voices you hear, too!

It takes you two posts back to back to get you to this point, riffing on the 'primitive education' 'meds' and laughably the 'big left-wing conspiracy'. When people laugh at you does it make you hurt inside? A little bit of that insecurity at always trying to create the impression that more words equates to more intellect? Then the cherry on the top is psychoanalysis?

Getting back to the topic of the post, and away from the partisanship which, though entertaining for a while, is quickly boring...

Am I the only one here who suspects that Mr. Lambert is actually not gay at all? Look, think about it for a minute. Here's a guy who isn't really that good looking in the traditional guy sense. He notices that gays get more attention generally from the media, and that some cheap makeup and an affectation or two can transform one into a gay man without the pesky need to prove this orientation by being regularly anally penetrated by other men, or even by kissing another guy (have we actually seen him engage in gay sexual behavior?).

So presto, the straight Idol long shot becomes the gay new hotness. Which is cool, but is actually not the goal. Because Lambert, having tried this ruse a time or two before, knows that some women lurv their well-groomed femmy gay guys. So now he gets to be approached, nuzzled, groped, etc. by these women who would not have acted the same toward hetero Lambert.

And if one (or many) of these women, with whom Lambert has now said he is okay with making out occasionally, "turns" him for one regretful night of unbridled passion, well, there goes one eternally happy and empowered woman and one happy and spent evil genius.

Years ago, I worked a large company. One of the secretaries was a guy that looked similar to Adam, but with a fairly effeminate voice and stereotypical mannerisms (though he was never flamboyant), and who just about everyone thought was gay. The woman that company not only adored him, they confided in him like he was "one of the girls."

Then I found out that he was as straight as can be and apparently took more women to bed than any man I've ever personally known. Since then I've wondered how much of his mannerisms and voice were a show and how much were just him--my gut feeling is that he was naturally slightly effeminate, but quickly learned how effective it was bedding women and exaggerated it.

Oh yes, here's a pat on the head and a cookie because you thought you could adorn us with your little quippy factoids about Detroits automobile origin of decline while utterly neglecting the fact that for 60 years of liberalism/leftism in that city has led to it's basic collapse. It's self evident in the total degradation of that once great city.

And you want credit for insight?

Compared to the fat brain turd you offered, yes I do.

Any idiot who assumes that a great city of millions can sustain itself absent the distinct industry or industries which made America famous is not worth taking seriously.

To propose that Detroit could have avoided collapse despite the downfall of the auto industry and the failure to replace it with another industry, is a damn fool.

Even conservatives know this.

There are other dynamics that play into Detroit's decline but of course you are too foolish to consider them. They might detract from your armchair punditry.

It takes you two posts back to back to get you to this point, riffing on the 'primitive education' 'meds' and laughably the 'big left-wing conspiracy'. When people laugh at you does it make you hurt inside? A little bit of that insecurity at always trying to create the impression that more words equates to more intellect? Then the cherry on the top is psychoanalysis?

Yeah, I'm laughing at you. Thanks for the chuckle, chuckles.

The incoherence of this post aside, I'm getting the impression that Mephistopheles grew up without a father. It would explain the recalcitrant homophobia and provide some context for his boasting of having grown up in a "shit hole".

But maybe that's too psychoanalytical for you, Meph.

BTW, did you ever take a psychology course or was learning not "cool" where you grew up? Is that how you internalize going to a high school where kids probably got shot for doing their homework and trying to stay out of trouble?

To propose that Detroit could have avoided collapse despite the downfall of the auto industry and the failure to replace it with another industry, is a damn fool.

Even conservatives know this.

There are other dynamics that play into Detroit's decline but of course you are too foolish to consider them. They might detract from your armchair punditry.

I never made such a proposal that Detroit replace it's auto industry with some other one. The point I made in saying that Detroit was a shit hole, and to which you've so uneloquently and vapidly expounded upon utterly needlessly, was because of 60+ years of the ideology you hold so close to your bitch-titted bosom has laid waste to that city with it's policies of governance and policies of labor. You didn't want to have the UAW implicated, well guess what, keyboard monkey, they are one of the reasons that Detroit is in the state that it's in. Between the utter political collusion between the city and the upper echelon UAW thugs, it has taken a city with a standard of living that was at one time one of the best to now one of the worst. Coupled with, again, the liberal/leftist ideology as it stems from the Fed with respect to labor and how it put the major automakers in a box in how they could deal with the unions, and then later on how they could build vehicles, well, you have a large problem on your hands that is self-inflicted. These morons slit their own throats with a handshake and a collective bargaining contract and they didn't see it coming. But now that GM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fed, I guess you got your wish afterall and Michigan sees even more labor leaving it's confines with over 200k jobs being lost, 20% unemployment, and even more so within the city itself. And you have the idiocy to even ask what possible industry could fill the vacuum and try to attribute it to something I never said much less intimated.

Oh, yes there are other dynamics involved in Detroit's decline all of which lead utterly back to your beloved ideology. Even your delusions are underwhelming. Need a bra with that, honey?